Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:57, 25 December 2017

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

December 18

Turkish cross?

I am researching German bombing of the UK in the First World War. The use of Gotha bombers against London was called Operation Turkenkreuz, variously translated as "Turk's cross" or "Turkish cross". Question; is there such a thing as a Turkish cross and if so, what was its significance in Imperial Germany? Alansplodge (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you google-image Türkenkreuz you'll see lots of pictures of crucifixes and the like, many pre-dating World War I. I haven't found anything that explains why it was called Türkenkreuz, but given the religious implications hinted by those crucifixes, Germany might have considered this mission to be "righteous" from their viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, de:Raaberkreuz. As explained in that article, these wayside shrines were also called "Türkenkreuze". Their construction was decreed by Rudolf II after the Austrian re-appropriation of Castle Győr (Raab in German) in 1598 which had been occupied by the Ottoman Empire (see also Long Turkish War). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely at those Türkenkreuz images on Google, it seems like they are all or mostly "wayside shrines" as you've indicated. There's at least one in Wikipedia: thumb|right It was uploaded by Commons user Karl Gruber. He's German, but if he knows English maybe he could tell us more, include why it's called "Turk's" or "Turkish" - assuming that's what it means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the de-wiki article and the Old German cited there, these crosses were rebuilt after being torn down by "bad people" as a sign of the victory over the Osman (Turk) forces. Unfortunately neither this article nor de:Kampfgeschwader der Obersten Heeresleitung explain why the operation was called this, although it might be related to the first use of aerial bombs in the Italo-Turkish War. Regards So Why 13:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly User:Sluzzelin, I think I must have mis-spelt my German Google search as it drew a blank. The de.Wikipedia entry is confirmed by this page which Google has translated as:

'A very strange and interesting speciality are the so-called Raaberkreuze, also commonly called Turkenkreuze. The Raab fortress was in the 16th century the main bastion against the Turks and a key point for Austria. It was therefore considered a tremendous disaster when in 1594 this fortress fell into the hands of the Turks. The general rejoicing was all the greater, when it was conquered again in March of the year 1598 by Baron Adolf von Schwarzenberg. Emperor Rudolf II issued a decree on April 25 of the same year that the stainern [?] or other cross and Marterl pillars on all roads, passports and separations [border posts?] to be replaced within two months with a painted crucifix and with the inscription either in the stone or on a metal plate: "Praise God to the Lord and thanks".'

German operation names often alluded to historic and nationalistic names, so this makes a lot of sense. Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These were the same Germans who told the Turks that the Kaiser had converted to Islam and declared jihad on the Allies. See Peter Hopkirk's On Secret Service East of Constantinople: The Great Game and the Great War, and indeed Buchan's Greenmantle. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; however there was a good deal of doublespeak on all sides when dealing with prospective allies, viz Britain's role in inspiring the Arab Revolt for example. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I have added a brief note to our Wayside cross article, so that Turkenkreuze should show up in the unlikely event that anybody searches for it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolia

When did Anatolia become more Turkic than Greek?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Anatolia article: "The Turkification of Anatolia began under the Seljuk Empire in the late 11th century..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:16C:7A91:B68E:A1BB (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Manzikert in 1071 was the tipping point; "The result of this disastrous defeat was, in simplest terms, the loss of the Eastern Roman Empire's Anatolian heartland" according to the Aftermath section of our article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1071 A.D., the center of the Greek-speaking region of the Byzantine Empire was actually in Anatolia (much more than in areas which are part of Greece today). This is discussed in the book Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World by Nicholas Ostler... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any rules or etiquette against segregating POWs by rank and splitting up units?

So each POW camp has a section with only enemy privates where the lowest-ranking unit and commander anyone has in common is a fairly high one not a low one like company or lieutenant, a camp section with only corporals (same thing) and so on and they can't talk through the fence to other sections or bang Morse Code or any other contact. So there's no one to give orders (besides voting a leader or something, everyone's rank being the same and all) and they have no camaraderie from fighting together or knowing each other. If people disagree about how or whether to try to escape they'd be more likely to bicker with the leader if they're the same rank. This doesn't seem very evil but I don't know all the treaties and etiquette for POWs. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the Third Geneva Convention, there is a link at the bottom of the page you can follow to read the exact wordings. Scanning, can see couple references to rank but you would want to read more thoroughly.70.67.222.124 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This purports to show the text of Article 4 of the United States Military Code of Conduct. The relevant part is "The senior POW (whether officer or enlisted) in the POW camp or among a group of POWs shall assume command according to rank without regard to Military Service. ... U.S. policy on POW camp organization requires that the senior military POW assume command." Whether or not it is the actual text, it makes sense that seniority would be used to decide between POWs of the same rank. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

During the Second World War Germany operated separate camps for officers (Oflag) and for other ranks (Stalag). In any camp, the senior person would have been expected to act as commanding officer - which in the case of a Stalag would have meant the seniot non-commissioned officer (probably a Sergeant-Major). Britain made the same distinction for German POWs in the UK. Wymspen (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever operates the POW camp also has some interest in maintaining order and exercising effective control. That implies allowing for an effective command structure in the camp. It's a trade-off between easier oversight and control on the one side vs. a small increase in risk of coordinated resistance or escape. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

Why are the members of the US Congress almost always from just two parties?

I'm aware of this question, which mentions among other factors Duverger's law; however, the answers seem incomplete because not all countries with plurality voting and/or single representation systems generally result in two and only two parties electing legislators. Even in other countries that have two dominant parties and/or use a FPTP system, there still tends to be at least some legislators that are either independent or not from the dominant parties. Why then are third-party legislators in the United States much rarer than in other countries with FPTP and/or two-party dominant systems? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One reason the UK has so many parties is that the Scots want a party, the Welsh want a party, the Catholics in occupied Ireland want a party, the Protestants want a party, the less conservative Protestants want a party, the centrist Englanders want a party and the parliamentary system allows them to do that. Also, you can get fired for not voting with your party's majority (I think) while you can't in America which further encourages more parties in Britain. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two-party system#Causes talks about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you see two parties, you're looking at it wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

One party's senators say global warming's bullshit and the other has $15 minimum wage in its platform. Are they really more similar than they're different? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The apparent differences are manufactured to promote discontent. People feel more involved in voting when they're voting against something they don't like or to protect something they do. Makes the skirmishing seem worthwhile. If one side had too many negative associations, it'd fail, so they divvy them up carefully, ensuring a constant loop of yesbutism in the public sphere that's singularly devoted to them. All part of the United States Chamber of Commerce's scaly (as in balanced) agenda. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I think some of the Senators and Representatives actually believe conservatism or liberalism to some extent. They're probably smart enough to not believe the stupidest things of each side though (i.e. vaccines cause autism). It's the ones that just pick the home team (i.e. live in Hawaii = Democrat) and pander to get in power or fencesit and flipflop that are alike. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 2 main parties always managed to prevent a splitup of their branch or wing by being very inclusive. To illustrate this its interesting to compare the scenario with that of the House of Representatives (Japan) where the Liberal Democratic Party almost exclusively ruled with huge majority since 1955 and/because the opposition is so fragmented that it does not manage compete against that, even in coalitions. I seems both US parties where smart and lucky enough to prevent a scenario change till now. --Kharon (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is simple. There is one party, with two wings; the establishment and the incumbents. To mutual advantage, the Democrats and Republicans have gerrymandered safe seats in most districts. The US Federal Election Commission has three Republican seats, and three Democratic seats. This extra-Constitutional body sets election guidelines, and famously decided after the 1992 election, in which Ross Perot was included in the debates, that any third-party candidate garnering at least 5% of polling nationally would be included in future debates. In 1996, Perot was polling well above this, but was arbitrarily excluded by the commission's declaration that Perot was not a "serious" candidate.

In most states the setup is the same. The Democrats and the Republicans often automatically get ballot slots, while third parties face onerous burdens getting signatures from each voting district to petition to be on the ballot. These petitions are often sabotaged by false-flag signature "collectors" and prohibitively expensive lawsuits challenging and disqualifying the petition results. State party committees arbitrarily keep candidates of the ballot, like Pat Buchanan in 1996 in NY State when he tried to mount a primary challenge against the anointed establishment choice, Bob Dole. Once in power, third-party winners like Jesse Ventura find neither party will support their agenda. The US basically has an unconstitutional establishment of party, by which the system is rigged in favor of the incumbents in every way possible. μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Communications Commission is directed by Republicans and Democrats, too, appointed by Democrats and Republicans. You can find them talking about each other on most every basic channel, but if you want alternative views, you need to buy a speciality (or better yet, premium) package. This pricing plan allows people like Brian L. Roberts to claim nonpartisanship by donating thousands of dollars to "both" parties, as well as providing "both" with the sort of omnipresent platform that keeps "them" at around 75 million members to the Libertarians' 500,000. You don't see such political crap in Canadian TV's shadowy cabal. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

There may have been a few more third party Representatives and Senators now if this wasn't the case but do you think there'd be close to a 3-way split in the legislature but 2-way in the executive? The Founding Fathers required a majority of Electoral College votes to avoid being decided by the House (also 50%+1) because they wanted a President with broad appeal, not the kind of thing that happened in 1860 when the South started seceding pre-inauguration cause each layer of Southness picked a different President and Lincoln won. If there were 3 major parties Republicans would win less often and the Centrist Party would win more often than anyone if the voters didn't screw up the tricky game theory-like game. Otherwise, a Bernie Sanders-like guy would win with not much over 33% every so often. Would you be okay with that? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you assume that voters have preferences described by a single linear dimension, there is no advantage in forming a "Centrist Party". You do better by taking a position just to one side of the other party, and sniping all the voters to that side.

The reason that more than two parties can succeed is that voters' preferences are not in fact one-dimensional. Somehow, in the United States, the multidimensional space of preferences has been projected along a single, not very well-motivated "left–right" axis, and though that axis makes no philosophical sense whatsoever, it seems to have a distressing amount of staying power. I don't really know why. Answer that question, and maybe the original question will also become clear. Or not. --Trovatore (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest it could move to a more philosophically accurate system like a 2-axes system without proportional representation? Could a 4-party system work for a President instead of a Prime Minister? Even removing the majority requirement from Electoral College votes would require a Constitutional amendment. There were only 2 parties at the very beginning and periods of fracturing and realignment into 2 different parties so it certainly has staying power. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's always been the tube. 42 years later, it's just gone serial. If bicentennial Americans were reluctant about turning off a TV mid-sentence, the millennials are damn sure not about to voluntarily disconnect from Wi-Fi or delete their Facebooks while everyone else stays in the loop. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

The OP has been answered with relevant facts and links. It is not our place to wander off into "How would you suggest it could move to a more philosophically accurate system like a 2-axes system without proportional representation?" land. Ref Desk, not message board. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Adrian IV

Was Pope Adrian IV of Norman descent or is he considered of Anglo-Saxon descent? Would he have spoken Middle English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.39.38.154 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB says "a web of myth surrounds his origins, and no doubt much is later tradition woven at the great abbey of St Albans. But the following facts seem reliable. He was born in or near St Albans (Matthew Paris says he came from Abbots Langley) and was given the name of Nicholas. His father was Richard, as is certainly stated in a contemporary calendar of obits, not Robert (de Camera) as Matthew Paris says; allegedly and probably a priest, Richard later became a monk of St Albans. He may have been a married priest, for during the course of Pope Adrian IV's struggle against the emperor Frederick Barbarossa, it was widely proclaimed by imperial propagandists that this was so. Nicholas had a brother, Ranulf or Randulf, clerk of Feering, Essex, a church in the patronage of the abbot and convent of Westminster, who alleged that Ranulf retained it after he had become an Augustinian canon at Missenden." So, it seems that we don't really know much about his origins. I've seen it argued in other fora that he is more likely to have been of Saxon than Norman descent, but nothing that we could regard as a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His alleged birthplace is Bedmond, a little village about a mile away from Abbots Langley and a gentle afternoon's walk (five miles or so) from St Albans in the other direction. Seems a bit of a lowly place for a Norman only 40 years after the Conquest, but that's a bit circumstantial. I found Nicholas Breakspear: Englishman and Pope by Tarleton, Alfred Henry, (London, 1896) which starts by saying: "The records of his origin are conflicting and scanty...". Alansplodge (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He left England at some point before 1137, and it's very doubtful whether you can really talk about Middle English existing at that time. These periodizations are a bit arbitrary, so that for example our article on Middle English can't decide whether it began in 1100 or 1150, but it only gives a reference for the latter date, and most scholars would date the transition of Old English to Middle English to somewhere around 1150. So the question is whether he spoke Late Old English, Anglo-Norman or both, and I'm afraid no-one can definitively answer it for you. --Antiquary (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Now I've edited the Middle English article – 1150ed it up. --Antiquary (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What actually divides Western and Eastern Europe?

Is there some kind of mountain range between the two? Or are they different because of the Cold War and Communism? 140.254.70.225 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One division was religion-based, which was long before the Commies came along. Read Western Europe and its "See also" links for some insight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly the Iron Curtain line though, Poland's very Catholic and Religion in the Czech Republic is more Western than Eastern Christianity (to the extent that religion has survived which isn't too much). Northeast Germany switched sides after the unpleasantness transferred it to Poland. Greece was geographically and religiously Eastern but Iron Curtain west. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I don't think religion is a strong criteria. Yes, Russia is traditionally mostly Russian Orthodox, but Poland is as Catholic as France (was) or Spain, while the Czechs had a significant early Protestant (Hussite) population. More relevant might be that most of Western Europe was part of the Western Roman and/or the Holy Roman Empires, with mostly Germanic and Romanic or Romanised populations, while Eastern Europe was more influenced by Byzantium and even Asian powers like the Mongols, and has mostly Slavic populations and languages. Western Europe also has better access to the oceans, and hence came to prominence during the age of discoveries and the rise in overseas trade, while Eastern Europe was more isolated. But historically, the difference has not been so strong - it really became cemented after WW2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What divides Western and Eastern Europe?Central Europe. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant articles at Regions of Europe and Europe#Definition. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Iron curtain 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:16C:7A91:B68E:A1BB (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What divides Europe and Asia? Or Asia and Africa? Or North and South America? Or countries? These are all social constructs. They are what humans say they are, and they can and do change over time. As others have noted, common dividing criteria include the division between centum and satem languages, religious differences, and once belonging to the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. None of these are themselves a definitive way of carving things up, because we're talking about nebulous, messy human categorizations. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one has linked to Eastern Europe so far; the lead of that article quotes this page which puts it: "Unfortunately, there are almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region." --Theurgist (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Roman Senate always in the Capital?

I've been trying to find an answer to this either on Wikipedia or otherwise online, but I've had no luck. The capital of the Western Roman Empire moved a couple times as rulers of the late empire chose to make different cities home to their primary residence. But when an Emperor declared a new capital, did the senate move with him? Was the Roman senate ever in Milan or Ravenna, or did it stay put? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rome remained the seat of the Roman Senate..." — Deliyannis, Deborah Mauskopf (2010). Ravenna in Late Antiquity: AD; 7. Ravenna capital: 600-850 AD. Cambridge University Press. p. 41. ISBN 9780521836722.

2606:A000:4C0C:E200:16C:7A91:B68E:A1BB (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Awesome. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have a detailed article on the Roman Senate, which explains that the Senate remained in the city of Rome until last mentioned in 603. In 630, the Curia Julia (the building used for Senate sessions) was converted into a church, probably signifying that the Senate had ceased to exist. Dimadick (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see now Curia#Senate_House contains information on the three main Curias, which were all in Rome. And I did read that article, actually. I just felt like, with the movement of the capital not being mentioned at all in that article, I wasn't sure if the movement of the senate either never happened, or was omitted. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

Artwork

I've been unsuccessfully googling for one fantasy painting seen several years ago. The style, craftsmanship and subject are similar to Julie Bell and Boris Vallejo, showing a naked long-haired brunette face on, standing waist-deep in a dark swamp, eyes closed. Several dark, outlandish hands are emerging from the swamp, partially covering her breasts. Perhaps a relatively known artist. Just a link would suffice. Brandmeister^talk 16:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe like this one? Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly similar, but not that. Hope to retrieve the mag I saw it in some day. Brandmeister^talk 20:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This? —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar, but not. There she stands waist-deep approximately. Brandmeister^talk 10:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese makeup Song Dynasty

What is this form of make up called and any information on what it was? A lot of Song Dynasty empresses seem to sport it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Plum blossom makeup" (meihua zhuang) -- Info on Pinterest:[1], (but I don't want to "sign up to see more"). —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC) ... However, I think that primarily relates to the forehead decoration shown there. The overall style is only described as "ceremonial" here: Society of the Song dynasty #Women: legality and lifestyles[reply]

Sea-bee (creature)

Not sure if the Reference Desk is the right place to raise issues like this, but I am a bit suspicious about the veracity of this article. It lacks an image (which seems like a must for heraldry articles), and while there is a citation, it's to a journal issue with no date, author, or article title given, making it hard to track down. Can anyone who has access to the relevant "Coat of Arms" journal issue confirm this, and maybe get an image? I cannot find anything else online either. I'm also posting this on the article's talk page. 169.228.153.91 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It is already tagged as stub (see its categories (Heraldry stubs)). You can either fill it with better description, references and pictures or process it according our Wikipedia:Deletion process. --Kharon (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

Did Bangladesh and Burma ever fight each other in ancient times?

These two nations are beside each other. Have Bangladesh and Myanmar ever fought each other in ancient times? If so, when was it? 99.239.236.168 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, there was no "Bangladesh" or "Burma" in ancient times. For example, see: History of Rakhine & Pagan Kingdom —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Military history of Myanmar includes several references to conflicts between states which were in what is now Myanmar and and others which were in what is now Bangladesh. Just check for references to Bengal in that article - Bengali rulers do seem to have meddled in the affairs of their neighbours from time to time. Wymspen (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing human nature... if you point to any group of people, you will find that they have fought with their neighbors at some point in time. Towns fight with neighboring towns... tribes fight with neighboring tribes... ethnic groops fight with neighboring ethic groups, etc. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts for territory and resources have also been observed in other primates. I am far from certain if it is "human" nature or has to do with a tendency to organize ourselves into competing tribes. Dimadick (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that the Bengali language is more closely related to Irish and the Burmese language to Chinese should clarify the fact that these two are not neighbors because they originated in peaceful primordial coexistence. μηδείς (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 22

Millenials in other nations

In the article "Millenials", you only mentioned Millenials in US, which supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party primaries in 2016 and Millenials in UK, which they were known for Bremain also in 2016. What about their counterparts in France, Germany, and other nations? What were they famous for? Donmust90 (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donmust90, Millenials is pretty much an Anglophone concept. Other countries probably don't have "Millenials", because they go through the generations in a different way than someone from the Anglophone world. Hence, people in other countries don't need an exact equivalent concept for Millenials. SSS (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth do you mean by the statement that other countries "go through the generations in a different way than someone from the Anglophone world"? What is the difference, in your view, between the experience of a young person growing up in England and one in Germany, for example? --Viennese Waltz 08:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a disinterested reader, I understood SSS to mean that other countries do not employ the demographic analysis that divides people into "Baby Boomers", "Generation X", "Millennials" etc., which is based on historic, economic, demographic and cultural evolutions and perceptions that may differ from country to country. (I neither endorse nor refute the assertion itself.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.173 (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I refute it. The term "bobo" doesn't have an article in the English Wikipedia, but see Bobos in Paradise. The term is in widespread use in France, Germany and Austria. --Viennese Waltz 10:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... but that leaves the core of Don’s question unanswered. Whatever the generation that is just coming of age may be called, are there political and social trends that they are identified with? Blueboar (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading the Baby Boomer generation a while ago. IIRC, the Baby Boomer generation was the first generation to recognize themselves as "one generation" with respect to social and political trends; and this group decides to pave the way for the generations before them and the generations after them. Clicking around on Wikipedia, a similar sociopolitical generation occurs in China, where the young, relatively rich and comfy generation born after the one-child policy differs starkly from the parental generation (who probably lived through the rise of the Communist Party and the Cultural Revolution). SSS (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. According to our articles, the term Silent Generation dates to 1951 and Lost Generation pre-dates 1926. How much generation mutual feeling there was I don't know but the terminology is older than the Boomers. Rmhermen (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are wandering off topic... so let me try to rephrase the question that was asked: Outside of the US and UK, are there social/political trends that are associated with younger people? Blueboar (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. See my post above. --Viennese Waltz 10:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are those trends? Blueboar (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my post above? Bobos. --Viennese Waltz 12:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in that article about bobos being particularly young; it also seems to relate to a period 10-20 years ago, so even if they were young then, they would be approaching middle age now. Is the meaning different in continental Europe? Henry ^Flower 17:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different from what? As I've already stated, it's a continental European term! And the term is used to describe each generation, so I don't know what you mean about them approaching middle age. --Viennese Waltz 23:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different from the only source you've provided (the article on the book), which is about about Anglophone use of the term. If it is used to describe each generation in turn (which is not apparent from that source), then it doesn't seem to answer BB's question. Henry ^Flower 15:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world is this talk of "boboes"? In the 1970's in the Delaware Valley that term meant non-brand name sneakers, such as store-brand tennis shoes, rather than Nike or Adidas. Boys who wore boboes and floods (pants too short to cover your socks) got taunted mercilessly. I haven't heard the term bobo since Jimmy Carter left office. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It apparently stands for bohemian + bourgeois. (Not to be confused with "bozo".) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Viennese Waltz... I am not asking what names are given to the current “younger generation” (outside the US and UK) ... I am asking whether the younger generation can be identified by specific political/societal trends, and if so... what those trends might be? Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, to quote two editors here:
Which moment in history you pick as the "dividing line" is unimportant. You make your own decisions (and it is really relevant what criteria you use), instead try to appreciate the breadth and complexity of the situation. Singular and exclusive definitions are far less important than understanding relationships and processes.' Jayron32 5:31 pm, 2 May 2017
It doesn't matter what you call stuff. It's still stuff. --User:JackofOz 6:05 pm, 19 July 2015
I remember Viet Nam, Watergate, duck and cover, free love, Three color channels plus PBS and black and white on UHF, when you had to pay an extra fee monthly for a push-button land line. Adults of 21 nowadays don't remember the fall of communism, when AIDS killed quicker than pancreatic cancer, when there were no cell phones or email, let alone facebook or smart phones. The Simpsons didn't exist when I was in grade school, and yet they still exist even though they predate the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Basically, the economic boom resulting from the winning of the Cold War and the deregulation and privatization of business in the Anglo-American world led to a huge transformation spanning the 1990's. People who don't remember the Carter Administration and the Miner's Strikes and the Troubles and the forced coming out caused by the AIDS epidemic have no idea how radically the world changed in the time from the Fall of the Wall to the Fall of the Twin Towers.

Dynamics in China, the Muslim World, India, and Eastern Europe have paralleled this in many ways, but their starting and ending points have been far different as well. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are accusations of hypocrisy or double standard inherently opinions?

Since every situation is unique in one way or another, anyone could claim that their own context is sui generis and, so their own respective action is somehow special and does not contradict the principles, ideals, or laws they claim to uphold. Does this make logical sense? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. If you condemn redheads who rob banks and praise blondes who rob banks, then your double standard is evident; and if you are a redhead who robs banks, then your hypocrisy is evident. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kant would say that you should not wish for yourself something you would not wish for everyone (see Categorical imperative). What you describe is more or less Situational ethics (the opposite of the Categorical imperative), which was avant-garde in the 1960s, but doesn't seem to have a very good reputation today... AnonMoos (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that everyone would give me gifts I desire, including my giving myself gifts. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I accuse someone else of hypocrisy or having a double standard, that accusation is truth. When someone else accuses me of hypocrisy and having a double standard the accusation is just their opinion. Blueboar (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." (Daniel Patrick Moynihan). So it depends who you are and in what context you speak, argue or judge your "opinion". If a person is able to "set facts" like the Judge of a supreme court or the President of a superpower it is pointless to argue that this is only an opinion. The only option left then would be to "rewrite history" later, for whoever then can "set facts". --Kharon (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also like Hubert Humphrey's The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In historical narratives you often find one side of a conflict receiving praise and another being condemned for actions that seem identical. "Our" summary execution of prisoners was a necessary action for security reasons, while "their" summary execution of prisoners was an atrocity, war crime, etc. That sort of thing. Later writers use the double standards in these texts to examine the biases in the older texts and the writers who wrote them. Fiction writers often use such double standards to expose the biases of the characters. An amusing scene in A Song of Ice and Fire has a character placed on trial for various crimes. He points out that his judges are actually ruthless vigilantes and have all committed similar crimes to his own. Dimadick (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the biggest island people are pretty sure has never seen (non-cold) war?

Antarctica might win but it's a continent. Devon Island is currently the world's largest uninhabited island but perhaps too close to the Inuit to be sure. Is it one of the relatively few islands that weren't discovered till the last handful of centuries or so? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Greenland has never been a theater of active warfare. Blueboar (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“

The German base on Sabine was bombed by USAAF bombers from Iceland.[15] It was then seized by a Coast Guard landing party, but all German personnel save one person had already been evacuated by a Dornier Do 26.[16] Apart from fire exchanged between German aircraft and U.S. ships, this was the only offensive air attack on the Greenland mainland.An American air force formation attacked the station on 14 May to make sure it could be of no use to the Germans.[1] Two more skirmishes occurred between the Sledge Patrol and the Germans, leaving the Greenland force with two more dead and four wounded by the end of conflict in 1944.[8]

”

— Greenland_in_World_War_II#Greenland_enters_the_war (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok... so not Greenland then... Baffin Island? I would assume it would have to be a place that was mostly uninhabited, and fairly remote. (I doubt any of the Pacific islands would qualify... the Polynesian and Micronesian islands, for example, saw many wars ... both before and after Europeans arrived) Blueboar (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how intense your definition of war is, it's possible that the Norse had conflicts with the Dorset culture on Baffin Island (which is likely the Norse Helluland), and also that the Dorset culture conflicted with the Thule people. There was U-boat activity in Canadian waters during World War II, including probably around Baffin Island, but apparently no actual fighting occurred. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Ellesmere Island in northern Canada. It is the 10th largest island in the world, but has always been scarcely populated, poor in resources, and in an area with unforgiving Arctic climate. Our article mentions hunting expeditions by the Inuit and by the Vikings of Greenland, but little evidence of actual habitation. Another suggestion would be Alexander Island in Antarctica. It is Antarctica's largest island, the world's second largest uninhabited island, the 28th largest island in the world, and was completely unknown prior to the 19th century. There have been a number of territorial disputes over which country owns the island, but apparently no battles on its surface. Dimadick (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands by area μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia?--Kharon (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See North Western Area Campaign. Whether the Australian frontier wars also count depends on your definition. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.173 (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia also had the Emu War.-gadfium 19:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia and New Guinea comprise the Sahul continent, and consist of continental crust. With its lack of volcanism, Australia proper exhibits some of the oldest continental area in the world. By definition it is not an Island, and New Guinea's "island" status rests solely on the fact of the creation of the Torres Strait by rising sea levels during the Holocene interglacial.

My favorite candidate is the Kerguelen Islands which have never been the location of a battle, although they have been claimed by France since their official discovery. They are slightly smaller than Corsica, Crete, and Puerto Rico. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baffin Island is larger but that depends on if you consider the interactions of Martin Frobisher and the Inuit to be "war". If so then Victoria Island (Canada) is next in size. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 24

Mysterious Statute

[2] Can someone please tell what this small statute is (marked by a redish outline in the picture) ? Jon Ascton (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it is supposed to be a Garden gnome. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note statute vs. statue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its a comic. Ask the author. --Kharon (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tempest at Fisk

Carol Anderson writes of the US and Fisk University:

A morally and sexually compromised president had come to power promising a regime fundamentally different to his predecessor’s. The new administration was packed with conmen, hucksters, and unqualified shills raiding the public treasury and selling public lands to Big Oil. . . . In the midst of the maelstrom, an intellectual brawl broke out among African Americans. . . . [O]ne African American intellectual openly and mercilessly challenged another over what was essentially ephemera. Du Bois looked on at the row within Fisk University, Tennessee, and shook his head.

About the Harding "administration", of course. But what's this "row"? (The Fisk University article doesn't explain.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous dispute among African American be civil rights leaders at the turn of the 20th century was between W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington over the Atlanta compromise though I am uncertain what it had to do with Fisk University.--Jayron 32 02:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site, there was major internal turmoil at Fisk University in 1924-1925 (a few years after Harding). AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, Jayron32 and AnonMoos. But unless something has gone awry in the article I quote, it can't be either of these: Du Bois is presented as a bemused/appalled outsider, not an instigator or participant. (Oh, and Harding isn't specified: he's just my guess. But "It was the 1920s".) -- Hoary (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

American Airlines Flight 77

Is the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 did a sharp Maneuver seconds before crashing onto the first floor of the pentagon? or it just a conspiracy theorists imagination? 37.142.17.66 (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Witnesses described the plane “banking” slightly as it approached the Pentigon... but not a “sharp maneuver”. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women and children first!

You may have heard expressions like "Women and children first!", for example, in the context of the Titanic. This expression has been puzzling me for years.

Children come in two sexes: boys and girls. Girls develop into women and therefore stay included in this expression. Boys, however, develop to men, and fall outside the expression.

My question is, how is it defined when this happen? At which point in a male's life does he stop being included in "Women and children first!"? JIP | Talk 14:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Women and children first as well as child. When a boy is considered a man varies wildly between different cultures, and have changed over time. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the sense of honor as it relates to the young male; when the declaration is made: "Woman and children first", the young male may take the initiative to stay with the "men", or defer. Similar to the example of the many under-age "boys" who lied about their age in order to enlist in WWII. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monsignor Joseph Nelligan

I am trying to find the biography for Monsignor Joseph Nelligan who was assigned to various parishes in Baltimore, Maryland. For a time he was assigned to the Immaculate Conception Church in Towson Maryland. I'd like to learn what other parishes he was assigned to prior to being elevated to Monsignor.Google search reveals he passed away May 12, 1978 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmhub315 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the parish history of the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Towson:

Prior to assuming responsibility as pastor of Immaculate Conception parish, the Right Reverend Joseph M. Nelligan, a native of Towson ordained in 1926, served at Saint Gabriel's Church, Washington; in 1936 was chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore and Washington, and, as rector of the Basilica of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, supervised the renovation there from 1943 - 1947.

There's also a capsule biography of him in the 1939 edition of The American Catholic Who's Who which confirms that he was curate of St. Gabriel's, Washington, but again without giving dates. [3] [4] [5] Elsewhere he's spoken of as being curate of St Gabriel's in 1930, 1933 and 1934. So as far as I can make out his career goes St Gabriel's, Washington, then Immaculate Conception, Towson, then higher things in the Archdiocese. --Antiquary (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music Identification—Cuba Vacation Travel Guide

What is the the music playing behind this video? Bus stop (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 248: / Line 248: @@
 :See [[Women and children first]] as well as [[child]]. When a boy is considered a man varies wildly between different cultures, and have changed over time. [[User:WegianWarrior|WegianWarrior]] ([[User talk:WegianWarrior|talk]]) 14:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
+:There is also the sense of honor as it relates to the young male; when the declaration is made: "''Woman and children first''", the young male may take the initiative to stay with the "men", or defer.  Similar to the example of the many under-age "boys" who lied about their age in order to enlist in WWII. [[Special:Contributions/2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312|2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312]] ([[User talk:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312|talk]]) 23:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 == Monsignor Joseph Nelligan ==